Of note, the defendants position is being supported by a wide range of media organizations and free speech proponents. The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, for example, filed an amicus brief in conjunction with the ACLU, the Washington Post, and two dozen other media organizations arguing that all of the speech at issue merits First Amendment protection. Another amicus brief was filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a group of online publishers, and another — supporting the defendants solely on the procedural question — was filed by the District of Columbia. Copies of these briefs and other amici supporting the defendants may be found here.
Not everyone is lining up behind the defendants, however. NYT columnist Paul Krugman cheered Mann’s decision to file suit this week, though it appears his opinion on the matter is based on the uncritical acceptance of Mann’s characterization of events. For reasons I’ve discussed before (as in this post, among others), I do not think Mann’s legal case is all that strong.
DISCLOSURE: As I’ve noted in prior posts on this case, I am a contributing editor at National Review Online, which means I have a fancier byline when I submit articles to them and occasionally contribute to The Corner and Bench Memos. It is not a salaried position. I also worked at CEI from 1991-2000 — many years before the events at issue in this litigation.